A right to use land for highway purposes may usually be acquired by the public by its use for such purposes under a claim of right for the statutory period of limitation as to land, Such mode of acquisition of highway rights is ordinarily referred to as "prescription,"96 and is usually based on the theory that such user of the land raises the presumption of a dedication, or of an appropriation of the land by a statutory proceeding.97 In some states there are

95. Arkwright v. Gell, 5 Mees. & W. 203; Gaved v. Martyn, 19 C. B. N. S. 732; Wood v. Waud, 3 Exch. 748; Burrows v. Lang, (1901), 2 Ch. 508; Bailey & Co. v. Clark, Son & Morland, (1902), 1 Ch. 649.

96. If prescription is to be regarded as necessarily based on the presumption of a grant, the term is not accurate as applied to the case of a highway, since highway rights are created, not by grant but by dedication. See Angell, Highways, Sec. 131. The fiction of a grant can, however, hardly be regarded as an integral part of the law of prescription in this country at the present day.

97. Howard v. State, 47 Ark. 431, 2 S. W. 331; Schwerdtle v. Placer County, 108 Cal. 589, 41 Pac. 448; Daniels v. People, 21 111. 439; Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Town of Crown Point, 150 Ind. 536, 50 N. E. 741; Onstott v. Murray, 22 Iowa, 457; Thomas v. Ford, 63 Md. 346, 52 Am. Rep. 513; Reed v.

Not only may long user by the public operate to establish a highway otherwise non existent, but it may also operate to change the line of the highway.99 And if the exact line or limits of the highway are otherwise uncertain, prolonged user will serve to make them certain.1 Occasional decisions that passage by the public off the actual line of the highway, although continued for the prescriptive period, will establish no right to continue such passage, if such divergence from the true line of the highway is the result of mistake,2 are based upon the analogy of the doctrine, asserted in some

Inhabitants of Northfield, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 94, 23 Am. Dec. 662; Willey v. Portsmouth, 35 N. H. 303; Comm. v. Cole, 26 Pa. St. 187; note 5 Columbia Law Rev. 608; note 57 Am. St. Rep. 744.

98. See Freshour v. Hihn, 99 Cal. 443, 34 Pac. 87; Chicago v. Gait, 224 111. 421, 79 N. E. 701; Strong v. Makeever, 102 Ind. 578, 1 N. E. 502, 4 N. E. 11; Neal v. Gilmore, 141 Mich. 519, 104 N. W. 609; Elfelt v. Stillwater St. Ry. Co., 53 Minn. 68, 55 N. W. 116; Speir v. Town of New Utrecht, 121 N. Y. 420, 24 N. E. 692; Stewart v. Frink, 94 N. C. 487; Walcott Twp. v. Skauge, 6 N. D. 382, 71 N. W. 544; Comm. v. Kelly, 8 Gratt (Va.) 632: Dicken v. Liverpool Salt & Coal Co., 41 W. Va. 511, 23 S. E. 582.

99. Patton v. State, 50 Ark. 53, 6 S. W. 227; Patterson v. Munyan, 93 Cal. 128, 129, 29 Pac. 250: Landers v. Town of White-field, 154 111. 630, 39 N. E. 656: Strong v. Makeever, 102 Ind. 578

1 N. E. 502. 4 N. E. 11; Joseph v. Sharp, 172 Iowa, 254, 154 N. W. 469; Stockwell v. Fitchburg, 110 Mass. 305; Meyer v. Petersburg, 99 Minn. 450. 109 N. W. 840; Zimmerman v. Snowden, 88 Mo. 218 (semble); Brandt v. Olson, 79 Neb. 612, 113 N. W. 151, 114 N. W. 587; Comm. v. Marshall, 137 Pa. 170, 20 Atl. 580; Almy v. Church, 18 R. I. 182. 26 Atl. 58; State v. Lloyd, 133 Wis. 408, 133 N. W. 964; Christian-son v. Caldwell, 152 Wis. 135, 139 N. W. 751.

1. Taeger v. Riepe, 90 Iowa, 484, 57 N. W. 1125; Comm. v. Logan, 5 Litt. (Ky.) 286; Marlboro Twp. v. Van Derveer, 47 N. J. L. 259; Western Railway of Ala. v. Alabama G. T. R. Co., 96 Ala. 272, 17 L. R. A. 474, 11 So. 483.

2. Bolton v. Mcshane, 79 Iowa, 26; State v. Welpton, 34 Iowa, 144; Hamilton County v. Garrett, 62 Tex. 602; Shanline v. Wiltsie, 70 Kan. 177, 78 Pac. 436.

States, that possession beyond one's boundary line,, which is the result of mistake, is not adverse.3

- (b) User by public necessary. The user by the public of private land for purposes of passage, in order to establish a highway by prescription, must be along substantially one line,4 as must a prescriptive private way.5 A slight divergence is, however, it seems, permissible, especially when caused by the physical condition of the road.6

As to what constitutes a user by the public, it has been said that the public means, in this connection, all those who have occasion for the user,7 and that the amount of travel is immaterial.8 On the other hand it appears that user by a few individuals,9 or by the residents in the neighborhood10 is not sufficient. The

3. Ante, Sec. 505.

4. Sprague v. Stead, 56 Colo. 538, 139 Pac. 544; O'connell v. Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Co., 184 111. 308, 56 N. E. 355; Hougham v. Harvey, 40 Iowa, 634; Schroeder v. Village of Onekama, 95 Mich. 25, 54 N. W. 642; Montana Ore Purchasing Co. v. Butte & B. Consol. Min. Co., 25 Mont. 427, 65 Pac. 420; South Branch R. Co. v. Parker, 41 N. J. Eq.. 489 5 Atl. 641; Montgomery v. Somers, 50 Ore. 259, 90 Pac. 674; Brake v. Crider 107 Pa. St. 210.. Sample v. Harter, 37 S. D. 150, 156 N. W. 1016; Hart v. Town of Red Cedar, 63 Wis. 634, 24 N. W. 410.

5. Ante, Sec. 525, note 41.

6. Vance v. Adams, - (Ky.)-, 112 S. W. 927; City of Beatrice v. Black, 28 Neb. 263, 44 N. W. 189; Kendall Smith Co. v. Lancaster County, 84 Neb. 654, 121 N. W. 960; Kurtz v. Hoke, 172 Pa. St. 165, 33 Atl. 549.

7. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Etzler, 3 Ind. App. 562; Village of Grandville v. Jenison, 84 Mich. 54, 47 N. W. 600; Easter v. Overlea Land Co., 129 Md. 627, 99 Atl. 893; Jones v. Davis, 35 Wis. 376.

8. Louisville, etc R. Co. v. Etzler, 3 Ind. App. 562; Baldwin v. Herbst, 54 Iowa, 168, 6 N. W. 257; Village of Grandville v. Jenison, 84 Mich. 54, 47 N. W. 600.

9. Harper v. State, 109 Ala. 66, 19 So. 901; Martin v. People, 23 111. 395; O'connell v. Chicago Terminal Transfer Co., 184 111. 308; State v. Tucker, 36 Iowa, 485; Eddy v. Clarke, 38 R. I. 371, 95 Atl. 851. See State v. Auchard, 22 Mont. 14, 55 Pac. 361; Rice v. Pershall, 41 Wash. 73, 82 Pac. 1038; O'connell v. Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Co., 184 111. 308, 56 N. E. 355.